I like Stefan Taylor, Eddie Lacy and Giovanni Bernard to have biggest impact on the next level....but non of them will be a Doug Martin. That kid Seastruck (spelling not sure?) from Baylor looks like somebody to watch in the future...and of course the Georgia Freshman look super talented...but for this year I like Taylor Lacy and Bernard the best.....I'll also mention Miguel Maysonet and Jawan Jamison as I feel they have some special talent as well

At least the Bengals, Packers and Falcons might spend a 1st round pick on a RB. If they can get the #1 RB on their board at the bottom of the 1st round, it's not a bad deal.

It really depends less on need and more on "what the team intends to do on their offense." I mean, the Bengals and Falcons play a brand of offensive football that has a lot of running in it. Add a good RB to those teams and they become a lot better on offense. But if the Packers were take an RB late in the first round and use him like the Saints have used Mark Ingram (and I don't think any of the backs this year are as talented as Ingram), that would be a mistake.

So part of the eval isn't just "do I need an RB, is this guy's grade appropriate for the slot" it should also be "how many carries do I have for this guy". Some backs need a lot of touches to produce, and if you can't ever get him 20+ carries (because your offense is predicated on passing) then you shouldn't draft him high.

So out of all the playoff teams this year (and trust me, I've done this for past years too and the results are very similar), only ONE team's leading rusher was drafted in the first round, and only TWO teams have a leading rusher who was drafted higher than the third round! And those two teams are probably two of the weaker teams in the playoffs and won't win more than a single playoff game between the two of them.

If picking a RB in the first round is a wise investment that contributes to winning, wouldn't a larger percentage of playoff teams reflect this? Instead, it seems that the majority of playoff teams make do *without* the contributions of first or even second round running backs. Why do teams continue to invest high draft picks in running backs when it's obvious that the teams that have consistent playoff success are doing so by investing in other, more important less easily replaceable positions such as QB, DL, OL, CB, WR, etc?

If top-tier (first and second round pick) running backs were truly important enough and irreplaceable enough, then teams would not be having as much success as they are having without these players.

Atlanta will take Bernard or Lacy. There may only be one RB taken in the first round, but there WILL be one.

This would be a classic mistake. This is the exact same thing that the New Orleans Saints did in 2011 when they drafted Mark Ingram.

"We have an elite roster, let's blow a luxury pick on a running back!"

The Falcons, despite Michael Turner looking old and slow, would be better served to continue to invest in OL, DL in the first round, or even the best TE, WR, LB, or CB that drops to them. Investing in a RB would be missing on an opportunity to improve those other areas of their roster, especially when they can easily find another Michael Turner in later rounds of the draft or in free agency and not miss a beat.

This would be a classic mistake. This is the exact same thing that the New Orleans Saints did in 2011 when they drafted Mark Ingram.

"We have an elite roster, let's blow a luxury pick on a running back!"

The Falcons, despite Michael Turner looking old and slow, would be better served to continue to invest in OL, DL in the first round, or even the best TE, WR, LB, or CB that drops to them. Investing in a RB would be missing on an opportunity to improve those other areas of their roster, especially when they can easily find another Michael Turner in later rounds of the draft or in free agency and not miss a beat.

With Turner being 30 and Snelling 29 it made since that they would take a back. Rodgers isn't an every down back. They could use more help on the O-line as well. TE could be the play as well because the best TE in the draft should be there come selection time.

So out of all the playoff teams this year (and trust me, I've done this for past years too and the results are very similar), only ONE team's leading rusher was drafted in the first round, and only TWO teams have a leading rusher who was drafted higher than the third round! And those two teams are probably two of the weaker teams in the playoffs and won't win more than a single playoff game between the two of them.

If picking a RB in the first round is a wise investment that contributes to winning, wouldn't a larger percentage of playoff teams reflect this? Instead, it seems that the majority of playoff teams make do *without* the contributions of first or even second round running backs. Why do teams continue to invest high draft picks in running backs when it's obvious that the teams that have consistent playoff success are doing so by investing in other, more important less easily replaceable positions such as QB, DL, OL, CB, WR, etc?

If top-tier (first and second round pick) running backs were truly important enough and irreplaceable enough, then teams would not be having as much success as they are having without these players.

It is one thing to wait till later rounds, it is quite another to pass on a RB who you believe will be a star in the NFL with a late round 1 pick. If I'm a GM who believes that I'm a RB from having a solid offense, I don't think I wait. Running the ball is still 30% of your offense even in today's game.

It is one thing to wait till later rounds, it is quite another to pass on a RB who you believe will be a star in the NFL with a late round 1 pick. If I'm a GM who believes that I'm a RB from having a solid offense, I don't think I wait. Running the ball is still 30% of your offense even in today's game.

Well, part of the problem is that "I'm convinced this RB will be a star" hasn't necessarily worked out that well. I mean, RBs drafted in the top 10 since 2003: Reggie Bush, Ronnie Brown, Trent Richardson, Darren McFadden, Cedric Benson, Carnell Williams, Adrian Peterson, and C.J. Spiller. It's too early to say on Richardson, but of that group we have only one "star" and a whole lot of disappointments.

If you look at the RBs drafted in the first round out of the top 10 in that same time period you find a couple of stud RBs (Larry Johnson for a while, Steven Jackson, Marshawn Lynch but not for the team that drafted him, maybe Chris Johnson), and a whole lot of average/mediocre/disappointing: Willis McGahee, Chris Perry, Kevin Jones, Laurence Maroney, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, Jonathan Stewart, Felix Jones, Rashard Mendenhall, Chris Johnson, Knowshon Moreno, Donald Brown, Beanie Wells, Ryan Matthews, Jahvid Best, Mark Ingram. It's too early to tell about Doug Martin or David Wilson.

So even if you're convinced a guy is going to be a stud running back, there's a good chance you're wrong. There may be a stud RB in each class, but more often than not that guy doesn't get taken in the first round behind backs who are far more disappointing (Moreno, Brown, and Wells going before LeSean McCoy; McFadden, Stewart, Jones, and Mendenhall going before Johnson and Forte (to say nothing of Jamaal Charles); Bush, Maroney, Williams, Addai, and White going before Jones-Drew, etc.)

So whatever NFL teams are doing to evaluate RB prospects, they need to do a better job of it than they have been doing.

It is one thing to wait till later rounds, it is quite another to pass on a RB who you believe will be a star in the NFL with a late round 1 pick. If I'm a GM who believes that I'm a RB from having a solid offense, I don't think I wait. Running the ball is still 30% of your offense even in today's game.

The problem with this logic is that EVEN if your first round pick turns into a stud RB, how much does that really contribute to winning?

Year after year, the teams with "stud" RBs often sit out of the playoffs while other teams built around stud QBs (with say, late round draft picks starting at RB) are playing in the playoffs.

The RB position is extremely fungible in today's NFL. For a team to be an elite offense, the level of performance they need from a running back is low enough that it is trivial to extract that level of performance from free agents and late round picks, as long as you have that top-10 QB to establish the passing game.

You simply don't need elite talent at RB to be a competent offense, let alone an elite offense.

With Turner being 30 and Snelling 29 it made since that they would take a back. Rodgers isn't an every down back. They could use more help on the O-line as well. TE could be the play as well because the best TE in the draft should be there come selection time.

Smart teams take the best player available at premium positions (OL, DL, CB, WR) in the first round, REGARDLESS OF CURRENT NEED.

That's what the Falcons should do. They should simply not care at all how "old" their RBs are, or how "good" the rest of their team looks. What if Jonathan Abraham is toast next season and they suddenly have no pass rush? What if their LT suddenly suffers a career ending injury? All of these scenarios basically mean that NO POSITION on a team is ever not a need. All positions on a team, even on the most well-stocked 14-2/15-1 team, is one or two injuries away from being a "need". And these are positions that are vastly more important (pass protection and pass rush) than the RB position.

Even if both RBs drop off next year, they can fill it in with some late round pick or free agent. The position is simply not important enough to NFL offense that this will affect them greatly. As long as Matt Ryan is the quarterback of the team and he's throwing to Julio Jones and Roddy White, the Falcons will have an elite offense, regardless of RB.

That's why drafting for need is absolutely the worst possible thing a General Manager can do to a team. ALWAYS draft Best Player Available, and at PREMIUM positions (that means NO RBs in the first round, and probably no non-pass-rushing or non-pass-covering defensive players as well, and clearly no punters, kickers, fullbacks, and the like).